3 ms·

Why is writing about Russia a personal thing? I think I will need more context to understand this.

PhasmaFelis 5y ago
It's personal because it's not work-related. He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance.
- ptero 5y ago
  Demanding random, pointless tasks from subordinates is a bad sign, but the Russia example might not be one of those. If a boss needs information s/he can ask a subordinate to make a brief. Sometimes the reasoning behind the important request is not clear to the subordinate and it might seem pointless. A good boss would generally explain, but failing to do it is still very very far from bullying (plus, some important info is gathered piecemeal on purpose to avoid leaking things early). I am not claiming those are applicable here, just that much more context is needed to understand the situation.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. I won’t do it for the Elongated Muskrat himself.
    - ptero 5y ago
      That is perfectly reasonable. Someone else might gladly learn something interesting on the company dime, even if the topic seems unrelated to the job. For example, if my employers offers me a sailing, woodworking or machining class (neither of which has anything to do with what I work on) I will take it. Sausage making -- I will pass; not my kettle of fish.
    - serf 5y ago
      > Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. honestly I see that more as evidence of employment mobility and financial security. a friend of mine works as a fry-cook as a chain restaurant. He is paid a low wage, and has a dwindling savings account. He told me a story about having to re-caulk toilets at the restaurant during low-traffic hours, I replied with "I thought you were a fry-cook?, he replied with "I do whatever keeps the job." (i'd have serious misgivings about the history essay, too.. I just tend to think that our willingness to question the duty is just evidence that we're confident we could go elsewhere and write code instead. That confidence isn't intrinsic in the workplace across all professions.)
- dmix 5y ago
  > He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance. Is this just speculation or do you know more examples where he did this? Given his background of bringing up his political activism during tech conferences he could have just been using it as background for his talks (which has included AI ethics). In that context I could see a connection to Russian politics. Still likely personal but not "random tasks to show dominance".
  - tobias__ 5y ago
    I feel if it was for a purpose like this it could be contextualized to the employee (which IMO is necessary if they're going to write anything that is useful for any purpose beyond personal interest)
    - lazide 5y ago
      It would if he wanted to, and it’s what we generally expect of good bosses. I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen.
      - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
        > I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen. No one claimed there was. They said that not doing it makes him a bad boss. You seem to be in agreement.
        lazide 5y ago
        Ah, but the context of the thread is more than that! The context is around outrage that he got promoted. And being promoted is about a lot more than if someone is a good boss, as painful as that is for many folks working for such a bad boss. It’s possible to get an immense amount done and/or be remarkable effective despite being a bad boss - if the folks working for them put up with it. And it isn’t illegal to be a bad boss, as long as someone is bad in specific ways and not others.
  - magpi3 5y ago
- ffhhj 5y ago
  Then subordinates must show their dominance not doing useless work. I've been in meetings in which I'm the one screaming to my boss in the face. When another boss tried to make me look bad with our superiors, I showed them their ineptitude and bully behavior. A few times had to quit a job due to the toxic environment, but always got more interesting and rewarding jobs. Never felt guilty about crushing a bully.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    > subordinates must show their dominance That's how to get fired. If the boss says "do it" and you say "no" and you each hold your ground, eventually it gets to "do it or you're fired." (In a few companies it might be "do it or you're fired" vs "stop asking or I'll transfer" but it's rarely "stop asking or boss is fired.") A good boss won't let it to that, but that power over another—to hire, promote, and terminate—is what fundamentally defines the hierarchy. Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to who was toxic at those jobs that ended badly, it still sounds like you're significantly more assertive than most workers. I do agree that people should stand up for themselves regardless of their position in the hierarchy. There's no excuse for mistreatment, and especially these days, consider how someone who's mistreating you may mistreat someone who's more vulnerable.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      That's why when any boss asks for something completely irrelevant for the job, in my opinion the correct approach would be to ask for a documented request. i.e. "please, send me an official email with your request". If the boss then goes crazy, then reveals he had no good intentions from start, and yes, it's definitely hard to fight back without eventually get to that point of no return. If that's the case, you then better leave that place before getting fired, which has the side effect of showing that you're not that easy to manipulate. It's not just about self esteem and/or testosterone however: any time diverted from the job to other things could impact the project, and doing that during your time means there's your name stuck to the job at that time; if something goes wrong because of the time spent doing other stuff then it is your fault, so he better gives some good official explanation for demanding that extra work. (edit: moved under the right parent post)
catillac 5y ago
It sounds like it was a side task not related to the company or the company’s work, but rather the writing was at the whim of the person at issue. My framing is something like telling someone who reports to you to do your college homework.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Without full knowledge, I feel it’s difficult for an outsider to determine whether Russia is “work-related”.
- ic4l 5y ago
  He was training AI models, and needed some test data sets... Of course he upset many people .

It's personal because it's not work-related. He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance.

ptero 5y ago
Demanding random, pointless tasks from subordinates is a bad sign, but the Russia example might not be one of those. If a boss needs information s/he can ask a subordinate to make a brief. Sometimes the reasoning behind the important request is not clear to the subordinate and it might seem pointless. A good boss would generally explain, but failing to do it is still very very far from bullying (plus, some important info is gathered piecemeal on purpose to avoid leaking things early). I am not claiming those are applicable here, just that much more context is needed to understand the situation.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. I won’t do it for the Elongated Muskrat himself.
  - ptero 5y ago
    That is perfectly reasonable. Someone else might gladly learn something interesting on the company dime, even if the topic seems unrelated to the job. For example, if my employers offers me a sailing, woodworking or machining class (neither of which has anything to do with what I work on) I will take it. Sausage making -- I will pass; not my kettle of fish.
  - serf 5y ago
    > Well, I write software. If you randomly ask me to write a brief history of Japanese factories, I’m going to be like wtf. You’re going to have to explain yourself. honestly I see that more as evidence of employment mobility and financial security. a friend of mine works as a fry-cook as a chain restaurant. He is paid a low wage, and has a dwindling savings account. He told me a story about having to re-caulk toilets at the restaurant during low-traffic hours, I replied with "I thought you were a fry-cook?, he replied with "I do whatever keeps the job." (i'd have serious misgivings about the history essay, too.. I just tend to think that our willingness to question the duty is just evidence that we're confident we could go elsewhere and write code instead. That confidence isn't intrinsic in the workplace across all professions.)
dmix 5y ago
> He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance. Is this just speculation or do you know more examples where he did this? Given his background of bringing up his political activism during tech conferences he could have just been using it as background for his talks (which has included AI ethics). In that context I could see a connection to Russian politics. Still likely personal but not "random tasks to show dominance".
- tobias__ 5y ago
  I feel if it was for a purpose like this it could be contextualized to the employee (which IMO is necessary if they're going to write anything that is useful for any purpose beyond personal interest)
  - lazide 5y ago
    It would if he wanted to, and it’s what we generally expect of good bosses. I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen.
    - PhasmaFelis 5y ago
      > I don’t think there is any rule requiring it anywhere I’ve seen. No one claimed there was. They said that not doing it makes him a bad boss. You seem to be in agreement.
      - lazide 5y ago
        Ah, but the context of the thread is more than that! The context is around outrage that he got promoted. And being promoted is about a lot more than if someone is a good boss, as painful as that is for many folks working for such a bad boss. It’s possible to get an immense amount done and/or be remarkable effective despite being a bad boss - if the folks working for them put up with it. And it isn’t illegal to be a bad boss, as long as someone is bad in specific ways and not others.
- magpi3 5y ago
ffhhj 5y ago
Then subordinates must show their dominance not doing useless work. I've been in meetings in which I'm the one screaming to my boss in the face. When another boss tried to make me look bad with our superiors, I showed them their ineptitude and bully behavior. A few times had to quit a job due to the toxic environment, but always got more interesting and rewarding jobs. Never felt guilty about crushing a bully.
- mLuby 5y ago
  > subordinates must show their dominance That's how to get fired. If the boss says "do it" and you say "no" and you each hold your ground, eventually it gets to "do it or you're fired." (In a few companies it might be "do it or you're fired" vs "stop asking or I'll transfer" but it's rarely "stop asking or boss is fired.") A good boss won't let it to that, but that power over another—to hire, promote, and terminate—is what fundamentally defines the hierarchy. Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to who was toxic at those jobs that ended badly, it still sounds like you're significantly more assertive than most workers. I do agree that people should stand up for themselves regardless of their position in the hierarchy. There's no excuse for mistreatment, and especially these days, consider how someone who's mistreating you may mistreat someone who's more vulnerable.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    That's why when any boss asks for something completely irrelevant for the job, in my opinion the correct approach would be to ask for a documented request. i.e. "please, send me an official email with your request". If the boss then goes crazy, then reveals he had no good intentions from start, and yes, it's definitely hard to fight back without eventually get to that point of no return. If that's the case, you then better leave that place before getting fired, which has the side effect of showing that you're not that easy to manipulate. It's not just about self esteem and/or testosterone however: any time diverted from the job to other things could impact the project, and doing that during your time means there's your name stuck to the job at that time; if something goes wrong because of the time spent doing other stuff then it is your fault, so he better gives some good official explanation for demanding that extra work. (edit: moved under the right parent post)

catillac 5y ago

It sounds like it was a side task not related to the company or the company’s work, but rather the writing was at the whim of the person at issue. My framing is something like telling someone who reports to you to do your college homework.

temp8964 5y ago
Without full knowledge, I feel it’s difficult for an outsider to determine whether Russia is “work-related”.
ic4l 5y ago
He was training AI models, and needed some test data sets... Of course he upset many people .